Fallacies Paper Mgmt/350

Fallacies are all around us. Every time we turn on a TV, or a radio, or pick up a newspaper, we see or hear fallacies. According to Dictionary.com, a fallacy is defined as a false notion, a statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference, incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness, or the quality of being deceptive (www.Dictionary.com). Fallacies are part of everyday and become a staple in certain aspects of life. Political campaigns and reporters would be lost without the use of fallacies. Fallacies can be divided into two broad groups: fallacies of relevance and fallacies of insufficient evidence. Fallacies of relevance occur because the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion. Fallacies of insufficient evidence occur because the premises fail to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion, even though the premises may be logically relevant to the conclusion (Bassham, 2000). In this paper I will define three fallacies, explain their significance to Critical Thinking, and discuss their general application to Decision Making. The three fallacies I will discuss are Ad Hominem (attacking the person), Two Wrongs Make a Right, and Slippery Slope.

Ad Hominem (Attacking the Person)

Ad hominem occurs when we reject a person's argument or claim by attacking the person rather than the person's argument or claim (Bassham 2000). This type of fallacy is a common occurrence in political debates. If a candidate cannot find valid reasons to dispute another candidate's claims or ideas then the candidate attacks the person himself, not the issues. It is important to mention that not every personal attack is a fallacy. A personal attack is only a fallacy if an arguer rejects another person's argument or claim, and the arguer attacks the person who offers the argument or claim, rather than attacking the merits of the argument or claim. A simple statement attacking a person's character, though not right, is not a fallacy.

Ad hominem can play a very important role in the critical thinking process. If critical thinking is not used, people's opinions could be swayed by listening to personal attacks on people. If critical thinking is used a person would first identify the real argument here. Second, a critical thinker would analyze the discussion and then evaluate the arguments or claims. One would also take out prejudices and personal biases to formulate convincing reasons in support of a conclusion. With all of this information a critical thinker would be able to make a reasonable, intelligent decision about what to believe.

Ad hominem is very important in decision making because if done correctly it can actually persuade people to believe something that is not true because of invalid arguments. By making someone look less than desirable people can be persuaded to believe that because this person is not a good person then their ideas are not good ideas.

An example of this is from an article in the Caller Times (Caller.com 2006), a newspaper in Corpus Christi, Texas. The article is about a group of people the author has labeled as "nay-sayers" who oppose the city's efforts to improve its economy. The problem is the author is not attacking the reasons that these nay-sayers don't want the added business; he is attacking the nay-sayers personally. He states that they are against any improvements, they don't want the city to move forward. Not once does he mention any of the reasons that this sect of people doesn't want these certain improvements to commence. This is an example of ad hominem (Caller.com 2006).

Two Wrongs Make a Right

The fallacy of two wrongs makes a right occurs when an arguer attempts to justify a wrongful act by claiming that some other act is just as bad or worse (Bassham 2000). This is probably one of the most commonly known fallacies and possibly one of the most controversial. One of the biggest controversies surrounding this fallacy is the death penalty. Some people say that if a person kills someone then that person should be sentenced to death as well. Some people say that there is never a good reason to kill someone. Proponents of the death penalty say that someone who has killed a person deserves to die because the taking of a life is the ultimate sin. They are trying to justify their position by stating murder is the worst crime and the death penalty is just another form of punishment.

Two wrongs makes a right to me is not as much a part of the critical thinking process as it is an ethical decision. if someone wrongs me, do I wrong them back? If someone were to use critical thinking the only logical conclusion would be that two wrongs do not make a right and the solution would be to do the right thing.

In the decision making process two wrongs makes a right can be very tempting to go along with. I think we as people sometimes have the urge to treat people as they treat us, instead of treating people how we would like to be treated. A perfect example of two wrongs makes a right is from an excerpt that was posted on www.freerepublic.com. In the excerpt a guy was watching TV and one of the commercials was of two school kids fighting, and then McGruff the crime dog came on and told kids that if a bully tries to fight you that you should run away and tell a parent. For me as a parent I think that this is good advice. This person that sent in the email disagrees and thinks that a kid should stand up and confront the bully and then maybe the bully would back down and leave the kid alone. My problem with this is nothing is solved by fighting. Another problem is that maybe the bully will not pick on this kid anymore, but move onto a new kid and make his life miserable. By taking the matter to an adult the situation may be able to be handled completely by letting someone know that